BNUMBER:  B-281359; B-281359.2           
DATE:  February 1, 1999
TITLE: West Coast Research Corporation, B-281359; B-281359.2,
February 1, 1999
**********************************************************************

Matter of:West Coast Research Corporation

File:B-281359; B-281359.2          
        
Date:February 1, 1999

H. M. Spivack for the protester. 
Howard E. Ward for Able Corporation, an intervenor.
Capt. Mark D. Pollard, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. 
C. Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Where solicitation required vendors to provide detail sufficient 
to show compliance with listed salient characteristics of brand name 
model, determination that protester's quotation, which did not address 
certain of those characteristics, was technically unacceptable was 
reasonable and consistent with the solicitation.

2.  In procurement conducted under Federal Acquisition Regulation 
Subpart 12.6, providing streamlined procedures for solicitation and 
evaluation of commercial items, and Part 13, governing simplified 
acquisition procedures, where agency determined that the only 
technically acceptable quotation was unreasonably priced, protest 
against decision to solicit additional quote for the purpose of 
expanding competition is denied.

DECISION

West Coast Research Corporation (WCRC) protests the issuance of a 
purchase order to Able Corporation under request for quotations (RFQ) 
No. F05611-98-T-2008, issued by the United States Air Force Academy, 
for the purchase of equipment to be used in a scientific laboratory.  
The protester contends that the agency improperly rejected its 
quotation.

We deny the protest.

On September 3, 1998, the agency issued the RFQ as a combined 
synopsis/ solicitation for commercial items--a "sophisticated" 
five-force one-moment balance, calibration body, and master tape 
gauge, in accordance with a statement of objectives (SOO), which 
appeared in a Commerce Business Daily (CBD) notice announcing the 
solicitation.  Air Force Memorandum of Law, Nov. 5, 1998 at 1; CBD 
Notice dated Sept. 9, 1998 at exhibit 2 to WCRC protest.  The agency 
advised potential vendors that it had prepared the notice in 
accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12.6, 
which prescribes streamlined procedures for the solicitation and 
evaluation of commercial items.  CBD Notice at 1.  The notice 
referenced FAR  sec.  52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Items, 
subparagraph (b)(4) which requires vendors to provide enough detail to 
evaluate compliance, for example, through the submission of 
descriptive literature, product samples, or technical features.  Page 
3 of the notice advised potential vendors that the agency would 
evaluate technical acceptability and price and make an award based 
upon the ability of the quoted item to meet requirements of the SOO 
and price.[1]

The notice contained a list of salient characteristics for a 0.5-inch 
diameter force balance, model 0.75MKXIII, manufactured by the Able 
Corporation, which represented the "minimum needs" of the government.  
CBD Notice at 1.  The required balance was of a two shell design 
(floating frame) with the inner shell (rod) being mounted to the wind 
tunnel sting support and the outer shell (case or sheath) being 
mounted to the model.  That is, a concentric sleeve envelops a rod 
with sensors and transmits the forces that the model encounters to the 
sensors; the rod is attached to a "sting," or bolt, attached to the 
supports.  Protester's submission, exhibit 1 to the protest; CBD 
notice at 1; Able Corporation letter dated Nov. 9, 1998 at 1-2.  The 
listed salient characteristics included general requirements as well 
as specific requirements for dimensions, rated loads, temperature 
sensitivity, excitation and sensitivity, interaction, and wiring.  CBD 
Notice at 1-3.  In pertinent part, the general requirements stated as 
follows:

     Failure of any or all of the force and moment sensing elements 
     shall not cause separation of the model from the balance or 
     sting. . . .   [E]ach force and moment sensing element shall be 
     repairable or replaceable by the contractor without replacing the 
     entire set of elements.  The load range of the force and moment 
     sensing elements shall be changeable by removing the original 
     elements and replacing any or all of them with elements having a 
     new load range.

CBD Notice at 2.

Two firms responded prior to the stated closing date of September 18, 
one with a quotation of the brand name item.  The protester quoted a 
lower price but few details; its quotation principally addressed the 
protester's experience and expertise in designing wind tunnel 
balances.  It provided a drawing of a "proposed" balance, as well as a 
"preliminary design" for a concentric sleeve.  The agency provided a 
copy of the quotation to evaluators on September 22.

Evaluators noted that the protester's quotation failed to address many 
of the required characteristics and found evidence that the proposed 
design would fail to meet certain others.  For example, the quotation 
did not address separation of the model from the balance or sting; 
although WCRC indicated that the elements were replaceable, it did not 
indicate whether users could replace individual elements without 
removing all of them.  Evaluators determined that the quotation was 
technically unacceptable because it did not demonstrate that the 
design offered by WCRC would satisfy all of the agency's minimum 
needs.

The other quotation, for the brand name model, appeared technically 
acceptable but the price of $90,208.12 exceeded funds available for 
the procurement and the contracting officer considered that price 
unreasonable.  On September 23, he contacted Able, the brand name 
manufacturer, which had not seen the initial notice but requested an 
opportunity to submit a quotation.  Able provided its quotation at a 
price of $85,102.00 that afternoon.  Since Able's quotation was the 
lower-priced of the two technically acceptable quotations, the agency 
issued a purchase order to Able on September 24.  This protest 
followed. 

WCRC objects to the evaluation of its proposal.  While acknowledging 
that it did not address all of the requirements that the CBD notice 
included, the protester contends that it was unreasonable for the 
agency to expect vendors to address every one of the listed salient 
characteristics in their quotations.  A requirement to address each 
characteristic specifically, WCRC argues, overburdens the quotation 
with minor details.  Rather, WCRC contends, the agency should presume 
that vendors have the qualifications to understand requirements and 
can meet them, where as here the quotation is silent, since such 
silence creates an implied acceptance of "basic technical 
requirements."  Protest at 3.

In reviewing protests against an allegedly improper evaluation, where 
the agency uses simplified acquisition procedures, we examine the 
record to ensure that the agency reasonably exercised its discretion 
and that it evaluated quotations in accordance with the terms of the 
solicitation.  Environmental Tectonics Corp., B-280573.2, Dec. 1, 
1998, 98-2 CPD  para.  140 at 4.  Where a solicitation sets forth the 
agency's requirements and a vendor fails to address certain of those 
requirements, an agency need not presume that the vendor accepts those 
requirements and may, in fact, reject the quotation if it contains 
insufficient affirmative evidence that the item as quoted will meet 
the agency's requirements.  See Cirrus Tech., Inc., B-244461, Oct. 21, 
1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  348 at 2-3.  Since the record here shows that WCRC 
did not, in fact, address several of the requirements listed in the 
CBD notice, the agency's determination that the protester's quotation 
was technically unacceptable was reasonable.

We examine here several of the bases upon which the agency rejected 
the protester's quotation.  See Keco Indus., Inc., B-261159, Aug. 25, 
1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  85 at 8 (where agency finds an offer technically 
unacceptable in several areas, GAO need not address every finding, 
since finding of unacceptability in any area would be sufficient to 
justify rejection of the proposal).  As quoted above, the CBD notice 
required, as general features, that failure of any sensing element not 
cause the model to separate from balance or sting and that each 
element be repairable or replaceable without replacement of all the 
other elements.  It required that, in order to change the load range, 
the agency should be able to remove an individual element and replace 
it with one having the new load range.  The protester's quotation did 
not address whether failure of a sensing element would cause 
separation of the model; although it stated that elements were 
replaceable, it did not address whether a user could replace one 
element--either because of failure or to change the load 
range--without replacing the others.  The failure to provide an 
affirmative indication that the protester's product would meet these 
requirements provided a sufficient basis, under the solicitation, for 
the agency to reject the quotation as technically unacceptable.

After receipt of the agency report filed in response to the protest, 
WCRC filed a supplemental protest, asserting that it was improper for 
the agency to extend the due date for quotations, for the benefit of 
Able, while not affording the protester an opportunity to provide 
additional information.  The protester argues that, if the agency had 
conducted discussions with WCRC, the protester could have satisfied 
the agency's technical concerns in a "10 minute" telephone 
conversation with evaluators.  Protest at 5.

FAR  sec.  13.106-2(b)(2), which applies to simplified acquisition 
procedures, emphasizes efficiency rather than formal procedure and 
provides that it is not necessary to develop formal evaluation plans, 
establish a competitive range, or conduct discussions.  Where using 
simplified acquisition procedures, an agency has considerable 
discretion in its approach, as long as it promotes competition to the 
maximum extent practicable.  Cromartie and Breakfield, B-279859, July 
27, 1998, 98-2 CPD  para.  32 at 2; FAR  sec.  13.003(h).  An RFQ, unlike a 
request for proposals or an invitation for bids, does not seek offers 
or bids that can be accepted by the government to form a contract; our 
Office has raised no objection to agencies seeking and considering 
revisions to quotations submitted any time prior to award.   Safety 
Storage, Inc., B-275076, Jan. 21, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  32 at 2; Cf. John 
Blood, B-274624, Dec. 19, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  233 at 2.  Where, as here, 
the purpose is to enhance competition, and given that the agency had 
no technically acceptable quotations at a price the contracting 
officer considered reasonable, we see nothing improper in allowing 
Able, the brand name manufacturer, to submit a quotation after the 
closing date.  At the same time, given that this was a simplified 
acquisition, the agency was not required to discuss the material 
deficiencies in the protester's quotation.  See CDS Network Sys., 
Inc., B-281200, Dec. 21, 1998, 98-2 CPD  para.  154 at 3.  In any event, 
based on the record, we do not think the protester has established 
that the deficiencies in its quote were readily correctable.

WCRC also complains that, in the course of these proceedings, the 
agency supplied a copy of its protest, including one page marked as 
protected, to the Able Corporation.  Absent any basis to conclude that 
the agency's action had any effect on the evaluation and award process 
for this or any other specific solicitation, WCRC's arguments in this 
regard fail to state a valid basis of protest.  Advanced Seal Tech., 
Inc., B-280980, Dec. 14, 1998, 98-2 CPD  para.  144 at 4 n.3.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. In conducting this procurement, the agency also used the procedures 
authorized under Part 13 for simplified acquisitions.